7 ms·

Unfortunately I should have guessed I would have someone miss the entire point I was trying to make (How the media constantly mis-represent things to the point

by davesmith1983 7y ago

Unfortunately I should have guessed I would have someone miss the entire point I was trying to make (How the media constantly mis-represent things to the point that the public doesn't trust even if they accurately present the truth) because I was trying to be objective and politically neutral about a successful politician. > This would be the same Farage that made sure his anti-immigration message in the 2016 Brexit campaign had "the only prominent white person in the photograph obscured by a box of text": https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farag.. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farag.... You just did the very thing I was complaining about! They are claiming that how an image was cropped and where text was placed somehow indicates racism. You are concentrating on nonsense and not actually making an argument against any of his policies or any of the assumption of the advert. As for my descriptions of Farage. They come from other Journalists such as Brendan O'Neill (runs Spiked!). As for the rest of my description they are fairly objective. > Sad to see this rubbish on HN. Farage plays to the same racist tendencies as Trump and Bolsonaro do, with constant dog-whistling. When someone says "Dog whistling" that is the same as when someone runs out of arguments and says "Well you know it true and you aren't admitting it". It isn't an argument of any sort. You just did the very thing I was complaining about, and I don't think you even knew you were doing it.

defterGoose 7y ago
> "Well you know it true and you aren't admitting it". It isn't an argument of any sort. Most unfortunately, it's becomes impossible to make what we previously conceived of as an "argument" when one or more of the parties involved refuses to acknowledge the validity of objective reality (more commonly referred to as "facts").
toyg 7y ago
> I was trying to be objective and politically neutral about a successful politician. No, you were not -- you were (and still are) trying to pass your biases (Farage "patriotic" and unfairly portraited while being "uncontroversial") as objective, by attacking straw men in how public debate arrives at objective conclusions about him. I pointed you at one of many examples of why that is not the case, and you doubled-down on it while completely ignoring the bits of my post that are inconvenient to your biases. > not actually making an argument Because there is no argument to make: Farage's "policies" are just a hodgepodge of badly-thought-out slogans designed to appeal to the worst instincts of the electorate. Like on Brexit, which he campaigned for but for which (like all "hard brexiteers") he has no practical or coherent plan. The main problem with populists is precisely that their policies are unassailable, because they are completely devoid of details. They sell emotions, typically negative ones. > When someone says "Dog whistling" that is the same as when someone runs out of arguments As sad as it might make you, dog-whistling is a widely understood term in political debate, and there is little doubt that it is precisely what the likes of Trump and Farage do. (Well, to be fair, Trump has gone beyond that in recent days, turning to out-and-out discriminatory language.)
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  > No, you were not -- you were (and still are) trying to pass your biases (Farage "patriotic" and unfairly portraited while being "uncontroversial") as objective, by attacking straw men in how public debate arrives at objective conclusions about him. I pointed you at one of many examples of why that is not the case, and you doubled-down on it while completely ignoring the bits of my post that are inconvenient to your biases. In my original post I said something along the lines of "He was less controversial than Bolsonaro" not that he was uncontroversial. You didn't point me at anything objective. The best you linked me to a guardian article about an ad-campaign that claimed it was racist because one white person was removed from the photo. I think that sort of logic is ridiculous. As for me ignoring parts of your post, yes I ignored parts of your post because I thought they were irrelevant to the point I was originally trying to convey. > Because there is no argument to make: Farage's "policies" are just a hodgepodge of badly-thought-out slogans designed to appeal to the worst instincts of the electorate. Like on Brexit, which he campaigned for but for which (like all "hard brexiteers") he has no practical or coherent plan. Well UKIP's manifesto of 2015 is a 76 page document according to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32318683 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32318683 I chose this because this is the last time I believe they fought a general election with Farage as Leader. So this would be indicative of his policies (as he would have had a fair amount of input in the process). From the BBC summary it seems quite comprehensive. It seems to cover a similar number of areas as Labour's manifesto of 2015. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32284159 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32284159 So I think your characterisation is quite unfair. > As sad as it might make you, dog-whistling is a widely understood term in political debate, and there is little doubt that it is precisely what the likes of Trump and Farage do. (Well, to be fair, Trump has gone beyond that in recent days, turning to out-and-out discriminatory language.) I know what the term means. However many of those that use the term do so as an accusation. They don't mention who they are whistling at and what terms they are using to do that.
  - toyg 7y ago
    Farage is as controversial as any of the recent populist leaders, otherwise we wouldn't have the rivers of ink his outbursts command. Trying to paint one as less controversial than the other is just an attempt at making him more acceptable. > You didn't point me at anything objective. Want more? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11465505/Nigel-Farage-Bosses-should-be-allowed-to-discriminate-between-Britons-and-foreigners.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11465505/Nigel-Far... Refusing to accept that Farage's campaigns are fundamentally based on discrimination, is just denying reality. > Well UKIP's manifesto of 2015 is a 76 page document Yeah, and no UKIP supporter would likely be able to describe any of it, except the bits on discriminating foreigners and closing borders. Because, frankly, that's pretty much the only thing they care about. Farage's latest outfit, the brexit party, smashes together old marxists and capitalist cronies, in single-minded pursuit of discrimination. > They don't mention who they are whistling at and what terms they are using to do that Because it becomes tedious to do that after a while. The targets of dog-whistling are almost inevitably minorities, because they are the ones who cannot be attacked directly without falling openly into discriminatory language - commonly known as "racist".

defterGoose 7y ago

> "Well you know it true and you aren't admitting it". It isn't an argument of any sort. Most unfortunately, it's becomes impossible to make what we previously conceived of as an "argument" when one or more of the parties involved refuses to acknowledge the validity of objective reality (more commonly referred to as "facts").

toyg 7y ago

> I was trying to be objective and politically neutral about a successful politician. No, you were not -- you were (and still are) trying to pass your biases (Farage "patriotic" and unfairly portraited while being "uncontroversial") as objective, by attacking straw men in how public debate arrives at objective conclusions about him. I pointed you at one of many examples of why that is not the case, and you doubled-down on it while completely ignoring the bits of my post that are inconvenient to your biases. > not actually making an argument Because there is no argument to make: Farage's "policies" are just a hodgepodge of badly-thought-out slogans designed to appeal to the worst instincts of the electorate. Like on Brexit, which he campaigned for but for which (like all "hard brexiteers") he has no practical or coherent plan. The main problem with populists is precisely that their policies are unassailable, because they are completely devoid of details. They sell emotions, typically negative ones. > When someone says "Dog whistling" that is the same as when someone runs out of arguments As sad as it might make you, dog-whistling is a widely understood term in political debate, and there is little doubt that it is precisely what the likes of Trump and Farage do. (Well, to be fair, Trump has gone beyond that in recent days, turning to out-and-out discriminatory language.)

davesmith1983 7y ago
> No, you were not -- you were (and still are) trying to pass your biases (Farage "patriotic" and unfairly portraited while being "uncontroversial") as objective, by attacking straw men in how public debate arrives at objective conclusions about him. I pointed you at one of many examples of why that is not the case, and you doubled-down on it while completely ignoring the bits of my post that are inconvenient to your biases. In my original post I said something along the lines of "He was less controversial than Bolsonaro" not that he was uncontroversial. You didn't point me at anything objective. The best you linked me to a guardian article about an ad-campaign that claimed it was racist because one white person was removed from the photo. I think that sort of logic is ridiculous. As for me ignoring parts of your post, yes I ignored parts of your post because I thought they were irrelevant to the point I was originally trying to convey. > Because there is no argument to make: Farage's "policies" are just a hodgepodge of badly-thought-out slogans designed to appeal to the worst instincts of the electorate. Like on Brexit, which he campaigned for but for which (like all "hard brexiteers") he has no practical or coherent plan. Well UKIP's manifesto of 2015 is a 76 page document according to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32318683 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32318683 I chose this because this is the last time I believe they fought a general election with Farage as Leader. So this would be indicative of his policies (as he would have had a fair amount of input in the process). From the BBC summary it seems quite comprehensive. It seems to cover a similar number of areas as Labour's manifesto of 2015. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32284159 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32284159 So I think your characterisation is quite unfair. > As sad as it might make you, dog-whistling is a widely understood term in political debate, and there is little doubt that it is precisely what the likes of Trump and Farage do. (Well, to be fair, Trump has gone beyond that in recent days, turning to out-and-out discriminatory language.) I know what the term means. However many of those that use the term do so as an accusation. They don't mention who they are whistling at and what terms they are using to do that.
- toyg 7y ago
  Farage is as controversial as any of the recent populist leaders, otherwise we wouldn't have the rivers of ink his outbursts command. Trying to paint one as less controversial than the other is just an attempt at making him more acceptable. > You didn't point me at anything objective. Want more? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11465505/Nigel-Farage-Bosses-should-be-allowed-to-discriminate-between-Britons-and-foreigners.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11465505/Nigel-Far... Refusing to accept that Farage's campaigns are fundamentally based on discrimination, is just denying reality. > Well UKIP's manifesto of 2015 is a 76 page document Yeah, and no UKIP supporter would likely be able to describe any of it, except the bits on discriminating foreigners and closing borders. Because, frankly, that's pretty much the only thing they care about. Farage's latest outfit, the brexit party, smashes together old marxists and capitalist cronies, in single-minded pursuit of discrimination. > They don't mention who they are whistling at and what terms they are using to do that Because it becomes tedious to do that after a while. The targets of dog-whistling are almost inevitably minorities, because they are the ones who cannot be attacked directly without falling openly into discriminatory language - commonly known as "racist".